Some Reflections on the New Mormon History ROBERT FLANDERS In the last quarter-century a significantly different understanding of the Latter- day Saint past has begun to emerge in a series of books, journal articles, oral ad- dresses at various conferences, and more informally, in a dialogue that has con- tinued among the devotees of the inquiry. This significantly different understand- ing has been called the "New Mormon History." It differs from the "Old Mormon History" principally in a shift of interest and emphasis from polemics, from attacking or defending assumptions of faith. It is a shift from an evangelical to- wards a humanistic interest. As the Mormon historian Richard Bushman put it, it is "a quest for identity rather than a quest for authority." Historical studies embrace the most extensive, intensive, and well-matured of the scholarly endeavors which have the Restoration as their subject. The paucity of critical writings in the various fields of theology and philosophy is by com- parison especially striking. The phenomenon is understandable however. Mor- monism as a religious culture is and always has been based very heavily upon a complex of histories—the histories of biblical peoples and of subsequent Judaeo- Christian histories; the histories of pre-Columbian Americans; and especially the religious and secular histories of the United States. Finally the histories of the Latter-day Saints themselves and of Joseph Smith, the most important Mormon, have been crucial to all Latter-day Saint self-perceptions and to the images which they have attempted to present to the world. Of all these pasts, the most accessi- ble to writers are those that are most recent. The Great Revival of 1800, the world of Joseph Smith and his generation, the religious environment of the time, the First Vision, the writing of the Book of Mormon, Kirtland, Nauvoo, Utah of 1857, *The John Whitmer Address, delivered at the first annual meeting of the John Whitmer Historical Association, Nauvoo, Illinois, September 29, 1973. 34 Some Reflections on The New Mormon History I 35 1869, and 1890, etc., are not irretrievably lost in the mists of time and myth. Students are blessed (and sometimes cursed) with an abundance of written records carefully preserved. It has been and continues to be inevitable that almost every- one with an interest in the religion of the Latter-day Saints shall read—and some- times write—Mormon history. The generalization may be reversed—historians of Mormonism have shared an interest in and often a dedication to religious con- cerns (never did an author profess greater indifference to religion and betray greater interest in the subject than Fawn Brodie in No Man Knows My History). So Mormon studies have tended to be historical studies of Mormons themselves. The New Mormon History is based in religious concerns, but is at the same time different from and a necessary precursor to critical religious studies yet to be written. The practitioners of the Old Mormon History usually had a clear-cut position on Mormonism, either for or against, and tended to divide into two types: De- fenders of the Faith (whatever their faith might be) and Yellow Journalists. With few exceptions, non-Mormon practitioners were anti-Mormon, and, likewise, with few exceptions, Mormons were pro-Mormon. Ex-Mormons often became anti-Mormon. The New Mormon History, on the other hand, exhibits different characteristics in both practice and practitioners. Most of the new historians are professionals whose work exhibits critical-analytical techniques. Many are Latter- day Saints in background or persuasion, but their work seems influenced by their literary or their historical training as much as or perhaps more than by their reli- gious training. Their point of view might be described generally as interested, sympathetic detachment. One senses a shift in mood, too, from Victorian romantic sentimentality to a more realistic and tragic sense of the past.1 The fact that some of the New Mormon Historians are not Latter-day Saints is an exception which proves the rule. In sum, the New Mormon History is a modern history, informed by modern trends of thought, not only in history, but in other humanistic and scientific disciplines as well, including philosophy, social psychology, economics, and religious studies. There is a temptation at this point to indulge a favorite pastime of historians and discuss the historiography of the New Mormon History—that is, the history of its development. For the sake of concision in my primary purpose I will forego that exercise.2 Suffice it to say that the trend under discussion is one in which the 1945 publication of Fawn M. Brodie's No Man Knows My History was a land- mark. Certainly not all of the work published earlier should be called "Old His- tory," and neither is the reverse true. However, Brodie's famous and influential biography of Joseph Smith clearly exemplifies both Old and New, and so is a transitional work. A new era dawned with her book. All subsequent serious studies of early Mormonism have necessarily had Brodie as a referent point.3 A generation later, it is useful to analyze some of the implications of the New Mormon History for Latter-day Saints whom it has already touched during that time, as well as some possible future implications for them.4 The following discus- sion of these implications is divided into three topics: 1. The New History as an existential history. 2. The New History as a political history. 3. The New History as an ecumenical history. 36 / Dialogue l. The New History as an existential history: Although the new historians are not necessarily existentialist in their philoso- phy, there does appear in the New Mormon History a tendency for which the word "existential" is the most descriptive. Existentialism, briefly, is an attitude which protests against views of the world and against policies of action in which individual human beings are regarded as the helpless playthings of historical forces, or as wholly at the mercy of the operation of natural processes. It empha- sizes the dignity and uniqueness of individual human personality against the claims and demands of monolithic social systems such as the church or the state. So the existential situation of man is often described in existentialist writing as a series of agonizing moral choices to be faced by people privately and alone. These choices appear as dilemmas where the possible consequences are hidden from view and may be equivocal at best. By contrast, in the Old Mormon History life is inclined to be depicted as a mor- ality play, where moral choices are simply between good or evil, right or wrong. The choices divide the cast of characters into White Hats and Black Hats. The Old Historians are seldom comfortable until everyone in the cast is settled on one side or the other. Furthermore, for pro-Mormon Old Historians, individuals win es- teem not necessarily for the dignity and humanity with which they confront the dilemmas of the Mormon experience, but for their piety, their orthodoxy, and the ardor of their fealty to the Church's leaders. In reality, the first generation of Latter-day Saints included many persons whose hearts were melted by the Prophet's evangel, but whose heads were skeptical of some of his policies. Their anguish, unless finally resolved in favor of a "sure testimony," was likely to cause them to be ignored by the Old Historians who desired to marshall a panoply of faithful witnesses, and to consign doubters to the side of the enemy or to oblivion. (A number of names spring to mind in this regard: Oliver Cowdery, Warren Par- rish, John Corrill, Thomas B. Marsh, John and David Whitmer, and William Law). A special terminology exists in the Old History to describe their experience: they "break" with the church, and are subsequently "apostates" who often cease to exist in the history. As an RLDS I was fascinated in my student days to learn of this exercise, because in the Old Mormon History of the Utah church, the Re- organization and its generations of people have no existence and are not only un- accounted for, but, by definition, cannot be accounted for. The Reorganized Church developed its own version of the same phenomenon, in which the vast majority of Latter-day Saints drop from serious consideration after 1844, and, with their archvillainous leader, Brigham Young, become stereotypical scapegoats. In the old ant/-Mormon History the Church was a tyranny, and individuals within it were of little interest (top leaders excepted) until they "escaped" and "exposed" Mormonism. Ex-Mormons who escaped to the East, like ex-Commu- nists who escaped to the West a century later, were expected to write books de- tailing the horrors of their experience. They also were expected to reinforce rather than to alter significantly the existing stereotypes about the tyranny from which they had fled. The New Mormon History, by contrast, is interested in more than the narrowly sectarian experience of Latter-day Saints. More aware of and sympathetic toward the ambivalences of the human condition, it tends to be more patient with the "slow of heart." There are fewer apostates, fewer Mormon dupes and villians, at Some Reflections on The New Mormon History I 37 least in the traditional sense of these terms. A "break with the Church" is just as likely to be interpreted as a political, economic, psychological, or cultural phenom- enon as it is a moral or spiritual failure on the one hand, or as an escape on the other. The New History is rediscovering the lost people of the Mormon past—the ubiquitous dissenters, and the "Churches of the Mormon Dispersion," as Dale Morgan called the splinter groups.